Why did SDCOE work so
closely with Stutz law firm
in a private defamation
suit brought by Stutz law
firm?

The obvious answer
would be that SDCOE
was using public
resources to silence
public criticism of itself.
Here's
my page about
SDCOE.
I think SDCOE
wanted these public
comments removed from
the Internet.

The law forbids p
ublic
entities t
o prosecute
defamation lawsuits
.

In addition, public officials
should not commit
perjury to escape a
deposition subpoena.  
Lora Duzyk falsely
claimed that this blogger
"stalked" and "made a
credible threat of
violence."  The judge
said this was not true.
When a public
entity acquires
insurance
company ethics
SDCOE retaliates when a process server attempts to serve a deposition
subpoena on Diane Crosier
SDCOE asked for restraining order against the author of this website.  Diane Crosier
and Supt. Randall Ward use SDCOE resources to advance a private lawsuit by their
contract lawyers at
Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz.  

Assistant Superintendent Lora Duzyk swore under penalty of perjury (see below). But
the judge did't believe her.  Why?  She wasn't credible.   
(See judge's order in red
area at bottom of page.)

Kristie Mann declaration  (see below)
Sandy Thompson declaration (see below)
Interestingly, SDCOE is acting in support of Chula Vista Elementary School District in this case
(although public entities are forbidden by law to engage in defamation lawsuits).  Recently resigned
CVESD board member Bertha Lopez turns out to be no stranger to requests for restraining orders:


October 30, 1998

Chula Vista School Board Race Raises Question Of Character
La Prensa
By Daniel L. Munoz

By coincidence San Diego City Attorney Quinn had an Opinion on Domestic Violence published this
Thursday in the Union Tribune, University City edition. Generally one is quick to think only in terms of
males committing domestic violence against women. What caught my attention was that by a strange
coincidence, I had in my possession an order from the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego that issued a Temporary Restraining order on a Candidate for the Chula Vista Elementary
School District Board of Education. The order was dated July 22, 1993.

As an Editor and Publisher, I had to question within myself this was a legitimate issue to bring out. City
Attorney Quinn's piece certified in my mind that I had no choice. It spoke to morels, ethics, violence,
and behavior that in an Elementary School setting could be very detrimental to the district and to the
School children. A Board Trustee sets policy, has to determine issues that might involve drug usage,
violence amongst the children, violence from the parents, not only that she has to work with the other
Board members, administrators, teachers and parents but with the community at large.

It is within my professional perimeters to make it public and let you the voters decide whether you still
desire to elect her.

The facts: Rafael Hernandez a UCSD Instructor of Teacher Education and an instructor at the Bishop
School in La Jolla, filed a request to the Superior Courts to have Bertha Lopez, who is a candidate for
the Chula Vista Elementary School Board of Trustees, placed on a Restraining Order. She was
restrained from being within 100 yards of his sister's house and of his place of work. Mr. Hernandez
indicated that they had a "dating or engagement relationship".

What concerned me was his statement that said: "Defendant (Bertha Lopez) constantly calls my work
and my home. She has started to follow me. She told me that it my all end in blood if I do not do what
she wants. I'm afraid for my safety. The `blood' threat took place on 7/16/93."

It is a matter of public record case # 368879. The case never came to court. At the date of the hearing
neither Mr. Hernandez nor Bertha Lopez failed to appear. The case was dismissed with out prejudice.

The choice is up to the voters.
As I was leaving, Kristi Mann pulled out a pad of paper and a pen and started asking questions.  At first she was
calm and businesslike, but perhaps she was frustrated by her inability to rile me, and she became more and
more hostile.  First M
s. Mann said she didn't know anything about serving papers, then she said I was not
allowed to serve papers because I was a party.  
Well, of course not! I was standing next to my process server,
who had introduced herself and asked for Diane Crosier. I wasn't trying to serve the documents myself.

But when Ms. Mann went from claiming she knew nothing about serving papers to blustering on about who can
serve papers, I said with admiration, "Well, look at you! You do know about serving papers!" I thought the
situation was humorous. I wasn't mad.
I did say, with a laugh, that she was full of baloney when she changed
her story about not knowing anything about serving.
Her performance was clumsy and angry, but it was nothing
that I didn't expect.

Ms. Mann clearly did not want her boss to be asked to tell the truth about what goes on at San Diego County
Office of Education.
Ms. Mann clearly felt that no citizen has a right to expect openness or
honesty from SDCOE, and clearly wanted evidence to be withheld from San Diego
Superior Court.


I am pleased to note that at least Ms. Mann does admit that I brought a process server.


M
s. Mann kept asking me questions.  In hindsight, I think she was trying to prolong my stay.  She was on the
other side of a counter.
Well, That's My Job
March 5, 2009

Sometimes, as a
photojournalist, you find
yourself in situations
where people don't
exactly want you taking
their photographs.

Take this morning for
instance. The San Diego
County Employees
Retirement Association
decided in closed
session this morning to
accept the resignation of
their chief investment
officer, David Deutsch.
While the board
discussed this in closed
session, I approached
Deutsch with my wide
angle lens, stood directly
in front of him and
prepared to take a photo.
Deutsch sat, stared at
me for about 10 seconds
(which felt like an
eternity) and I told him
"Good Morning." He
shook his head and
continued to write on a
notepad and sip coffee
from an SDCERA mug.

Then, after he entered
the closed session
meeting, I went to wait in
the hallway for him to
exit. As he came down
the hallway he looked at
me and said "What?
Leave me alone already."
He then looked at two
women walking down the
hallway and continued:
"This guy's been taking
pictures of me all day."

Well, that's my job.
— SAM HODGSON
San Diego
Education
Report
Blog
SITE MAP
Home

Why This Website

Stutz Artiano
Shinoff & Holtz v.
Maura
Larkins
defamation

SDCOE

CVESD

Castle Park Elem

Law Enforcement

CTA

CVE

Stutz Artiano
Shinoff & Holtz

Silence is Golden

Schools and
Violence

Office Admin
Hearings

Larkins OAH
Hearing
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
OFFICE OF
EDUCATION VS.
MAURA LARKINS

Case Number:           
37-2009-00083941-CU-HR-CTL            
Case Location:   San
Diego     
Case Type:  Civil           
Date Filed:02/24/2009
Category: CU-HRS      
Harassment

Plaintiff/Petitioner  
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
OFFICE OF
EDUCATION                      

Defendant/Respondent  
LARKINS       MAURA           
Judge dismisses SDCOE politically-motivated request
for restraining order
Diane Crosier and
Supt. Randolph Ward
are using SDCOE
resources to advance a
private lawsuit by their
contract lawyers at
Stutz, Artiano Shinoff &
Holtz.  They are both
being sued by
SDCOE-JPA insider
Rodger Hartnett.


Randolph "Randy"
Ward and Diane
Crosier are using
public funds to advance
Dan Shinoff's private
lawsuit against this
blogger.
When San Diego County Office of Education-Joint Powers Authority executive director Diane Crosier recently
got subpoenaed by me (Maura Larkins) to testify in the defamation lawsuit against me by Stutz, Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz, Crosier was determined not to testify. She is the individual who has assigned millions of dollars worth
of SDCOE-JPA cases to Stutz lawyer Daniel Shinoff, and she's as loyal as they come.

Crosier wasn't in her office on our first attempt to serve the subpoena, but the secretary in the office assured us
that Crosier would be in the next day after 1:30 p.m.

But lo and behold, Ms. Crosier was nowhere to be seen at 1:45
p.m. the next day. "She has a right to change her schedule," the
secretary said. (I guess she felt defensive;
she must have known
that evading a subpoena is against the law
.)

Another woman in the office aggressively demanded my name and the name of the server. The woman told me I
couldn't serve the subpoena since I was a party in the case. I pointed out to her that I had brought someone
else to serve. We left quickly.

Next I got a message from Stutz law firm that Shinoff was representing his benefactor Diane Crosier in the
matter, and his office would accept service. My server went to Shinoff's office for a final, successful attempt at
service.

Yesterday I got a letter from Stutz attorney Jeffrey Wade saying Crosier would not testify.

Apparently Crosier and her boss, Randolph Ward, are so anxious to help Shinoff shut down my website that they
are not only devoting the public resources of SDCOE to Shinoff to prevent Crosier's deposition, but are devoting
public resources to harassing and intimidating me.


S
DCOE accused me of harassment for daring to try to subpoena Diane Crosier.

Apparently they think I shouldn't be allowed to serve subpoenas on them.  It would seem that one of the labels
for this post should be abuse of power, and another should be misuse of taxpayer dollars for private purposes.

It's legally prohibited for public entities to sue for defamation,
but Diane Crosier and Randall Ward have found a way to use
public resources to advance Stutz law firm's defamation suit
against me.
See page 2 below
San Diego
Education Report
<<<
This document claims that Maura
Larkins is 280 pounds! This is not
an honest mistake. The person who
wrote this was so deep into the joy
of fabricating "facts" that he must
have figured,
"As long as I'm
making stuff up, I might as well go
whole hog."


Not surprisingly, Crosier NEVER sat
for a deposition in the Stutz law firm
v. Maura Larkins defamation case.
Neither did Dan Shinoff. And Ray
Artiano walked out of his deposition.

In fact,
Judge Judith Hayes decided
the case without weighing any
evidence: she threw out all the
evidence and decided the case on
a technicality--a small mistake in
the form of Larkins' pleading.
Kristi Mann (or another person who prepared this deposition and had her sign it under penalty of perjury) made a
number of false statements in he declaration.

I was not the least bit upset or angry when I accompanied my process server to SDCOE for service of a supbpoena on
Diane Crosier. I assumed that three attempts would be made to serve Diane Crosier, none of them successful, and
then the subpoena would be served by substitute service on someone in the office. I was just there to help the process
server find the right location among the many buildings at SDCOE.

I never got angry. That is a complete falsehood, one of many.